Report comment

Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.

Comment

Good morning PP.

Either you've really failed to understand a pretty well-argued perspective from someone with experience in the field. Or you're a troll.

We have a blanket policy of taking no chances. Everyone gets an interpreter free at the point of use. If we make resident migrants pay for the interpreter, then we'd need to make visitors pay for one.

For custody, until charged, we have effectively whipped someone off the streets to interview them under caution. Why should they be billed for an interpreter, especially if not eventually charged?

For witnesses, they may be assisting an investigation of an incident they witnessed while on holiday, business, delivering goods in an HGV. They're supposed to call their mates in [Country X] and get them to send them £250.00 on PayPal?

Oh - and there's also the small issue of impartiality.

The ramifications of interpreters being paid for by people who - for instance - are involved in trials where the person accused is someone they know and are trying to get in trouble. That's just one example. The idea of them paying their own interpreter and its many possible outcomes is appalling beyond belief.

By the way, as an aside, the whole interpreter debate is all centred on the wrong angle. Cost - it's apparently expensive.

It isn't expensive. It has always been worth every last penny. It is a very skilled service and, to coin a great phrase I heard this morning, it's high time the MOJ stopped trying to squeeze champagne out of rocks.

Your details

Cancel